In a personal injury case, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of his or her injuries. This means that there must be a direct link between what happened and how it affected you.
An “intervening cause” is not necessarily a superseding cause.
In many cases, an intervening cause is simply any event that happens after the original accident and prevents it from happening again. For example: If you were hit by a car while crossing the street, then get hit again by another car while walking to your apartment building because they weren’t paying attention to their surroundings (and then fall down), this would be considered an intervening cause in your personal injury case because it prevented your first injury from happening again.
Therefore, they made sure there was no longer any chance of developing further complications from that initial accident. However, if you were injured as a result of someone else’s decision not to cross at all times during their commute home from work each day (i.e., they decided not pass over this particular intersection), then their decision would not qualify as an intervening cause since it didn’t prevent them from getting hit again by another vehicle later on down road.
Superseding cause affects the negligence of the defendant in your injury case
Superseding cause is a new event that occurs after the injury. Superseding causes may be accidents, medical emergencies or other events that occur after you were injured. They don’t change the original accident itself but they do change how it affects you and your recovery.
A superseding cause removes liability from the defendant
A personal injury lawyer in Grand Prairie knows that superseding cause is a term used in personal injury cases. It is not the same as an intervening or non-intervening cause, but it can be considered a part of the superseding category. A superseding cause is something that happens after the original accident (and usually before any other party’s injuries), and it helps prove your case that there was negligence involved in causing your injuries.
The most common way to establish a superseding cause involves proving that someone else’s negligence caused your own injuries—but what does this mean? For example, if you fall off your bike onto gravel because someone drove over it without warning signs warning drivers about such dangers, then this would be considered an intervening or non-intervening factor: Either way, they were not responsible for causing their own damages by driving over something that could have been easily avoided if they had taken care while driving along busy streets.
An intervening or superseding cause changes the outcome of a personal injury case
Intervening causes are those that were not foreseeable, while superseding causes are those that were foreseeable. The defendant’s negligence is not the cause of an injury if the plaintiff’s own actions caused it, so if you’re in this situation, you may be able to recover damages from your former employer even though you didn’t do anything wrong.
Foreseeability is a key element in a personal injury case
It means that your injury was the result of an event that could have been foreseen by the defendant, and that it resulted from some action or inaction on their part (or lack thereof).
You must prove foreseeability before you can recover damages for your injuries, but once you do, then all subsequent stages of your case are based on this fact alone.